University head says free speech does not override transgender safety

[Emily Lake]

You're talking to someone who doesn't seem to understand that common use of 'male' and 'female' on the street, to reference people on the basis of which genital they were born with and to expect usage of "man" and "woman" to be used equivalently is essentially is an insult to the privacy of everyone.

Just saying out loud "that person is male" or "that person is a man", by those people, says "that person has a penis". They really don't see the problem with that revelation, and in making and demanding that these revelations of others' privates on a regular basis.

What hope do you have of showing her that this thing is a violation when one of the most clear cut violations, of the nature of someone's private parts, is not considered an unacceptable data leakage?

This is absurd. I mean, just straight up anti-science anti-reality absurd. You are pretending that the sex of any given human is always a complete mystery if they have boxers on, and there's just no way at all to tell which people are female and which are male in 99.9% of cases.

To further assert that failure to engage in your pretend world is a violation of someone's privacy is... well... mind-bendingly conspiracy-like.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Malign interpretation?

Trans say it is a problem.

The school says we should address this.

Metaphor *whines*

So either they don’t care or they want to demean. There is no viable alternative interpretation.

People complain, the response is, but “my free speech”. It is apathetic at best.

There is a viable alternative interpretations.

On is that the affront is largely imagined and the offended are dramatically exaggerating.

So Trans say it is a problem,

You say they are imagining or making it up.

And in no way, can we possibly imagine, that Emily Lake is wrong.

 

[Emily Lake]

Malign interpretation?

Trans say it is a problem.

The school says we should address this.

Metaphor *whines*

So either they don’t care or they want to demean. There is no viable alternative interpretation.

People complain, the response is, but “my free speech”. It is apathetic at best.

There is a viable alternative interpretations.

On is that the affront is largely imagined and the offended are dramatically exaggerating.

So Trans say it is a problem,

You say they are imagining or making it up.

And in no way, can we possibly imagine, that Emily Lake is wrong.

Don't fucking trim my quote and pretend like that's the end of it. FFS. It's transparently disingenuous, Jimmy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So Trans say it is a problem,

You say they are imagining or making it up.

And in no way, can we possibly imagine, that Emily Lake is wrong.

Don't fucking trim my quote and pretend like that's the end of it. FFS. It's transparently disingenuous, Jimmy.

The rest of your post goes on about yourself and how you want to equate what someone else feels about something with how you feel about something you consider minor. Trimage provided no miscontext.

It was a presumptive equivalence with no basis to be made. So I decided to not waste my time with it and stick to the major point of your post, how you think you are the arbiter of what people should feel hurt or offended or harmed by.

 

[Jarhyn]

You're talking to someone who doesn't seem to understand that common use of 'male' and 'female' on the street, to reference people on the basis of which genital they were born with and to expect usage of "man" and "woman" to be used equivalently is essentially is an insult to the privacy of everyone.

Just saying out loud "that person is male" or "that person is a man", by those people, says "that person has a penis". They really don't see the problem with that revelation, and in making and demanding that these revelations of others' privates on a regular basis.

What hope do you have of showing her that this thing is a violation when one of the most clear cut violations, of the nature of someone's private parts, is not considered an unacceptable data leakage?

This is absurd. I mean, just straight up anti-science anti-reality absurd. You are pretending that the sex of any given human is always a complete mystery if they have boxers on, and there's just no way at all to tell which people are female and which are male in 99.9% of cases.

To further assert that failure to engage in your pretend world is a violation of someone's privacy is... well... mind-bendingly conspiracy-like.

I am pretending nothing. I am STATING that the correct action to take with one another is to not assume, no matter what you think you see, particularly when the people in question have made it a point to not show you that part.

To further assert that the correlation gives you any right to assume what is in another person's pants is laughable. Just because it is "apparent" to you does not make the actual reality of the thing any less private.

With respect to trans people, it's especially egregious as this privacy is particularly violated when they are outed.

 

[Emily Lake]

So Trans say it is a problem,

You say they are imagining or making it up.

And in no way, can we possibly imagine, that Emily Lake is wrong.

Don't fucking trim my quote and pretend like that's the end of it. FFS. It's transparently disingenuous, Jimmy.

The rest of your post goes on about yourself and how you want to equate what someone else feels about something with how you feel about something you consider minor. Trimage provided no miscontext.

No, actually, I DON'T consider it minor at all! I consider it to be extremely dehumanizing, misogynistic, and degrading! That's the damned point!

It was a presumptive equivalence with no basis to be made. So I decided to not waste my time with it and stick to the major point of your post, how you think you are the arbiter of what people should feel hurt or offended or harmed by.

Maybe you should actually "waste your time" and actually read what was written rather than making incorrect assumptions about what the point was. Because based on your quips here, you clearly have no idea what I said, or why.

 

[Emily Lake]

You're talking to someone who doesn't seem to understand that common use of 'male' and 'female' on the street, to reference people on the basis of which genital they were born with and to expect usage of "man" and "woman" to be used equivalently is essentially is an insult to the privacy of everyone.

Just saying out loud "that person is male" or "that person is a man", by those people, says "that person has a penis". They really don't see the problem with that revelation, and in making and demanding that these revelations of others' privates on a regular basis.

What hope do you have of showing her that this thing is a violation when one of the most clear cut violations, of the nature of someone's private parts, is not considered an unacceptable data leakage?

This is absurd. I mean, just straight up anti-science anti-reality absurd. You are pretending that the sex of any given human is always a complete mystery if they have boxers on, and there's just no way at all to tell which people are female and which are male in 99.9% of cases.

To further assert that failure to engage in your pretend world is a violation of someone's privacy is... well... mind-bendingly conspiracy-like.

I am pretending nothing. I am STATING that the correct action to take with one another is to not assume, no matter what you think you see, particularly when the people in question have made it a point to not show you that part.

To further assert that the correlation gives you any right to assume what is in another person's pants is laughable. Just because it is "apparent" to you does not make the actual reality of the thing any less private.

With respect to trans people, it's especially egregious as this privacy is particularly violated when they are outed.

This is a denial of reality Jarhyn. I don't even know how to approach this, because it's so completely off base from premise to conclusion.

There's no more "right to assume" what's in another person's pants than there is a "right to assume" a person's height, or apparent hair color, or whether they're left or right handed, or what color shirt they're wearing.

Determining a person's sex almost never involves their genitalia in real life. This notion that unless you see a person's genitals you cannot determine their sex with 99% accuracy is willfully wrong.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The rest of your post goes on about yourself and how you want to equate what someone else feels about something with how you feel about something you consider minor. Trimage provided no miscontext.

No, actually, I DON'T consider it minor at all! I consider it to be extremely dehumanizing, misogynistic, and degrading! That's the damned point!

It was a presumptive equivalence with no basis to be made. So I decided to not waste my time with it and stick to the major point of your post, how you think you are the arbiter of what people should feel hurt or offended or harmed by.

Maybe you should actually "waste your time" and actually read what was written rather than making incorrect assumptions about what the point was. Because based on your quips here, you clearly have no idea what I said, or why.

So they are imagining slight and you’ve been harmed by Midol commercials. That is the damned point?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's a matter of PUBLIC RECORD already. And the request was for a count, not for names or anything else.

Looking at the count of people in a particular subforum doesn't tell you who those people are.

The number of people involved is small. Combine that with months and you narrow it down to a few individuals, maybe even one individual.

This is unacceptable data leakage.

She didn't ask for months.

Beyond that... is it "unacceptable leakage" for ALL incarcerated individuals, whose crimes, terms, and placement are all public records as well? Or is it just a select few that need to be protected from the public having access to public records?

Sure she didn't? Because when this came up before I remember that being the worst part of it.

It's unacceptable leakage when data that is only supposed to be group data can be used to identify individuals within that group. Identifying individuals in this case is clearly illegal--it's revealing medical data that they have in confidence. Thus releasing any data which could identify even one individual is likewise illegal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's a matter of PUBLIC RECORD already.

My inclination straight away is to agree with you due to transparency and in particular records of the existence of prisoners ought to be public so that governments do not create secret torture prisons. However, in this case, there are a couple of nuances. First, if your assertion that it is a public record already were true, then all the requestor would need to do is a manual count of those public records. Since that hasn't been done, there appears to be something more to it. Perhaps you could comment on what is different? That brings me to the second point, ought the public have a right to know which persons born male are now female or in transition or have had particular medical interventions? I think the answer to that is no. From a legal standpoint there are also some privacy laws such as HIPAA and so forth that block the particulars of knowledge of specific people but there are also discrimination laws that relate to privacy as well. And I don't even know what else. So, third, at work, they'd publish to public info various statistics, like gender and race breakdowns of salary and whatever. However, when the occupation had like 1 or 2 people or the race had like 1 or 2 people, they'd not report it because then it would risk that the public could infer which individual received what salary or benefit or whatever. And it is plausible that the ACLU is blocking this for a related reason that there are so few persons in this class that reporting whatever has been requested violates privacy. Now you said it's already public, but I am thinking that the entirety of the request probably isn't. Otherwise, the ACLU would not have this stance. Perhaps you could provide a link to the ACLU's website and their stance on this issue so we can have a reputable source rather than just chatter and my reasonable speculations about it?

https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-records

Something to take note of that is in the documents they link--the same group of people has previously made requests for specific names. This is obviously a watered-down version of the previous requests and should thus be evaluated with extreme skepticism.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's a matter of PUBLIC RECORD already.

My inclination straight away is to agree with you due to transparency and in particular records of the existence of prisoners ought to be public so that governments do not create secret torture prisons. However, in this case, there are a couple of nuances. First, if your assertion that it is a public record already were true, then all the requestor would need to do is a manual count of those public records. Since that hasn't been done, there appears to be something more to it. Perhaps you could comment on what is different? That brings me to the second point, ought the public have a right to know which persons born male are now female or in transition or have had particular medical interventions? I think the answer to that is no. From a legal standpoint there are also some privacy laws such as HIPAA and so forth that block the particulars of knowledge of specific people but there are also discrimination laws that relate to privacy as well. And I don't even know what else. So, third, at work, they'd publish to public info various statistics, like gender and race breakdowns of salary and whatever. However, when the occupation had like 1 or 2 people or the race had like 1 or 2 people, they'd not report it because then it would risk that the public could infer which individual received what salary or benefit or whatever. And it is plausible that the ACLU is blocking this for a related reason that there are so few persons in this class that reporting whatever has been requested violates privacy. Now you said it's already public, but I am thinking that the entirety of the request probably isn't. Otherwise, the ACLU would not have this stance. Perhaps you could provide a link to the ACLU's website and their stance on this issue so we can have a reputable source rather than just chatter and my reasonable speculations about it?

https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-records

That's exactly what I did NOT ask for. I asked for a link of ACLU's side. You have given me something very one-sided from the opposite side. I will add a few more things: (1) Saying this is coming from the ACLU is very misleading because it is actually coming from ACLU and Disability Rights Washington. (2) The fact that Disability Rights is involved lends credence to some kind of privacy issue. (3) A violent sex offender will not be allowed in the general populace of the prison. It isn't clear who they would be grouped with, perhaps other female sex offenders or people in protective custody. If someone accuses a trans sex offender inmate of sex assault, it is possible they are guilty. It's also possible they are innocent. They could be lied about or discriminated against by female sex offenders they are being housed with. (4) Since there are single digit trans persons in women's prisons, a breakdown by location has a high incidence of revealing charges that are being kept private pending substantiation. Worse, release of the info of one accusation at one site could cause a backlash against innocent trans persons if they are so rare...they can be confused with each other. (5) I don't know what the Disability Rights Washington and ACLU are actually arguing.

 

[Metaphor]

(3) A violent sex offender will not be allowed in the general populace of the prison.

It is worth noting that the maximum security level in male prisons is lower than the maximum security level in female prisons. So if any maximum security transgender prisoner went from the male estate to the female estate, they would not be as restricted.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am pretending nothing. I am STATING that the correct action to take with one another is to not assume, no matter what you think you see, particularly when the people in question have made it a point to not show you that part.

To further assert that the correlation gives you any right to assume what is in another person's pants is laughable. Just because it is "apparent" to you does not make the actual reality of the thing any less private.

With respect to trans people, it's especially egregious as this privacy is particularly violated when they are outed.

This is a denial of reality Jarhyn. I don't even know how to approach this, because it's so completely off base from premise to conclusion.

There's no more "right to assume" what's in another person's pants than there is a "right to assume" a person's height, or apparent hair color, or whether they're left or right handed, or what color shirt they're wearing.

Determining a person's sex almost never involves their genitalia in real life. This notion that unless you see a person's genitals you cannot determine their sex with 99% accuracy is willfully wrong.

For 99.9999997% +/- .0000003% of all the people on earth, the actual shape of their genitals is pure trivia.

You are the one whose premise relies on "it matters" as if genitals == sex in the first place. And for that .0000003%, is it that hard to just fucking ask?

You don't see my genitals, you see my gender.

Determining a person's GENDER never involves their genitals. In many cases even determining a person's "sex" cannot rely on actually looking at their genitals. Not even genitals gets you to "sex" as if that's even a useful determination at the level of biology we are discussing

The problem that you can't seem to process is that you have no such natural right, no matter how much you wish you did.

You see gender, not sex.

For the record, this is the same problem any newbie idiot programmer gets when they try doing a floating point comparison to integral zero that somehow never seems to allow entry of the warded code.

 

[Metaphor]

Determining a person's GENDER never involves their genitals. In many cases even determining a person's "sex" cannot rely on actually looking at their genitals.

Jarhyn is confused. Sex is trivial to discern and has been done billions of times, on a continual basis, for about 100,000 years, correctly, by people who did not even understand what 'sex' meant.

You see gender, not sex.

Jarhyn is very confused now. A gender identity is a thought in a person's head. I have never seen a thought. Nor is it proper to assume gender from what you see.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, actually, I DON'T consider it minor at all! I consider it to be extremely dehumanizing, misogynistic, and degrading! That's the damned point!


Maybe you should actually "waste your time" and actually read what was written rather than making incorrect assumptions about what the point was. Because based on your quips here, you clearly have no idea what I said, or why.

So they are imagining slight and you’ve been harmed by Midol commercials. That is the damned point?

I get it. Your position is "fuck females - transgender people are better!"

 

[Emily Lake]

Sure she didn't? Because when this came up before I remember that being the worst part of it.

It's unacceptable leakage when data that is only supposed to be group data can be used to identify individuals within that group. Identifying individuals in this case is clearly illegal--it's revealing medical data that they have in confidence. Thus releasing any data which could identify even one individual is likewise illegal.

First off - it's not medical data. There's no diagnosis, it's a self-declaration of personal identity. It's not protected under HIPAA if there's no medical diagnosis along with it.

Secondly - almost all incarcerated prisoners can be personally identified, because their crimes, their sentence, and where they are housed are public records. They're not in an easily searchable online database, but they are subject to public records request - because they're PUBLIC RECORDS.

What is happening in this situation is that the public is being denied access to public records - backed by the goddamned ACLU ferchrisakes.

Do you know why they're being blocked? Because WA (and CA, and soon ME) are allowing MALE prisoners, with MALE physiology, and ZERO requirement for any medical treatment at all to SELF-DECLARE themselves to be women and CHOOSE to be moved to a female prison.

The fact that this puts the female prisoners in danger, increases their risk of sexual assault and rape... well that just doesn't matter. The rights and safety of female prisoners is simply not as important as validating the feelings of male prisoners.

 

[Emily Lake]

Something to take note of that is in the documents they link--the same group of people has previously made requests for specific names. This is obviously a watered-down version of the previous requests and should thus be evaluated with extreme skepticism.

WoLF is one of the only legal groups out there that is actually willing to fight for women's rights. But go ahead and be "skeptical". It doesn't conform to your preexisting beliefs, so obviously it's not trustworthy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, actually, I DON'T consider it minor at all! I consider it to be extremely dehumanizing, misogynistic, and degrading! That's the damned point!


Maybe you should actually "waste your time" and actually read what was written rather than making incorrect assumptions about what the point was. Because based on your quips here, you clearly have no idea what I said, or why.

So they are imagining slight and you’ve been harmed by Midol commercials. That is the damned point?

I get it. Your position is "fuck females..."

Well yes, that is my preference. Not that I ever chose to be that way though. I never decided I was a male. I never decided I liked to.. well.. as you paraphrased. It is just who I am. Luckily, it is a baseline behavior, so I don't get second guessed by other people, or told that I'm dramatically exaggerating the criticisms of who I am.

 

[Emily Lake]

That's exactly what I did NOT ask for. I asked for a link of ACLU's side. You have given me something very one-sided from the opposite side. I will add a few more things: (1) Saying this is coming from the ACLU is very misleading because it is actually coming from ACLU and Disability Rights Washington. (2) The fact that Disability Rights is involved lends credence to some kind of privacy issue. (3) A violent sex offender will not be allowed in the general populace of the prison. It isn't clear who they would be grouped with, perhaps other female sex offenders or people in protective custody. If someone accuses a trans sex offender inmate of sex assault, it is possible they are guilty. It's also possible they are innocent. They could be lied about or discriminated against by female sex offenders they are being housed with. (4) Since there are single digit trans persons in women's prisons, a breakdown by location has a high incidence of revealing charges that are being kept private pending substantiation. Worse, release of the info of one accusation at one site could cause a backlash against innocent trans persons if they are so rare...they can be confused with each other. (5) I don't know what the Disability Rights Washington and ACLU are actually arguing.

There's a whole pile of assumptions based on naive belief wrapped up in there.

So...
https://mynorthwest.com/2666243/doc-washington-correctional-center-women-men-transfer/?

The concern among staff and inmates is a risk of sexual assault. The employee cites a recent incident in which an inmate from a male facility raped a female in the women’s prison upon arrival. The transferred inmate, according to the employee, is incarcerated for a sex offense and has “fully functional male genitalia, a history of violence and sexual depravity in the community, and has been found guilty of sexual assault against other inmates while housed in the men’s facilities.”

“He is a proven sexual predator, having committed multiple crimes against women, yet the State of Washington had no problem moving him into a women’s facility and housing him with the most vulnerable in our population (our mental health unit),” the employee wrote.

We've already seen increases in the rapes and sexual assaults of female inmates, perpetrated by transgender identified male inmates, in the UK and Canada.

But even though it has already happened, and continues to happen... women persistently get told (largely by men)... "that would never happen, you're overreacting".

 

[Emily Lake]

For 99.9999997% +/- .0000003% of all the people on earth, the actual shape of their genitals is pure trivia.

You are the one whose premise relies on "it matters" as if genitals == sex in the first place. And for that .0000003%, is it that hard to just fucking ask?

You don't see my genitals, you see my gender.

Determining a person's GENDER never involves their genitals. In many cases even determining a person's "sex" cannot rely on actually looking at their genitals. Not even genitals gets you to "sex" as if that's even a useful determination at the level of biology we are discussing

The problem that you can't seem to process is that you have no such natural right, no matter how much you wish you did.

You see gender, not sex.

I don't see "gender" at all. It's a feeling inside someone's head, and neither I nor you have shown any evidence of ESP.

Are you under the impression that a person's "gender" is defined by their clothing choices? Does that mean that a female who likes wearing jeans and t-shirts is a man in your eyes, because you can only see clothing and somehow, magically, you are completely blind to all of the secondary and tertiary sex characteristics of the human species?

And it's not a matter of "natural rights" in any fashion. There's no aspect of "rights" to this at all. It's a matter of being capable of observing the real world, not the imaginary androgynous landscape that you seem to wish existed.